GURJANT SINGH,VALTOHA PATTI TARN TARAN vs. ITO WARD 1 TARN TARAN , ITO WARD TARN TARAN
Facts
The assessee, claiming to be an agriculturist, deposited Rs. 13,56,500 in cash during demonetization. No return was filed, and the assessment was completed ex-parte, treating the deposit as income under Section 69A. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the quantum appeal to the AO for fresh assessment, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documentary evidence, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal reduced the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 10,000.
Key Issues
The key issues were the validity of ex-parte assessment and appellate orders due to non-compliance, the taxability of cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained income, and the appropriateness of penalty for non-compliance with notices.
Sections Cited
Section 144, Section 250, Section 142(1), Section 69A, Section 272A(1)(d)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 30.09.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward-1, Tarn Taran dated 31.12.2019 passed u/s
144 of the Act, 1961.
2 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. The asseseee has taken six grounds in Form No. 36 and the main grievance of
the assessee is against the passing of ex-party order by the ld. CIT(A) without affording
proper opportunity of being heard.
Brief facts emerging from the records are that the assessee has claimed to be an
agriculturist and has deposited cash of an amount of Rs. 13,56,500/- in his bank account
at Kotak Mahindra Bank A/c No. xxxxxx00384 during demonetization period and in
absence of any return being filed, proceedings has been initiated u/s 142(1) and in
absence of any response or compliance in course of assessment proceedings, the
assessment has been completed ex-party on a total income of Rs. 13,56,500/- (treating
the SBN deposit as income u/s 69A).
The matter carried in appeal has been dismissed in absence of any response to
various notices issued by the ld. CIT(A), by observing as follows:
“I have carefully considered the facts of the case, grounds taken in appeal as well as gone through the observation and findings of the AO 's assessment order. Since no written submission against the grounds, as enumerated in grounds of appeal, is filed by the appellant despite availing multiple opportunity of hearing 30-08-2024, 11-09-2024 etc., the appeal relating to the grounds are disposed on merit i.e. based on materials available on records. I find from the grounds of appeal vis-à-vis statement of facts that the appellant claimed the AO has made erroneous addition based on erroneous information and the same proceedings being bad in law.
In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”
3 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds contained in
Form No. 36 and the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an
agriculturist and has got no other income other than from agricultural activities and the
cash that has been deposited in bank account has been sourced out of sale proceeds of
agricultural crops and he prays for an opportunity of furnishing of documentary
evidences to support his contention of and agricultural income.
The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and has submitted that the
assessee in spite of so many opportunities has not been able to produce any evidence
of agricultural land holdings and has not filed any documentary evidences relating to
agricultural crop sale. He further submitted that in course of appellate proceedings,
there was no compliance and in absence of any evidence brought on record, he prayed
for the appellate order to be sustained.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and
we find that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs. 13,56,500/- in cash in his bank
account during the demonetization period and in spite of repeated notices being issued
and served, no return of income has been filed, and has not complied with any notices
issued by the AO and even in course of appellate proceedings, the assessee has not
responded to any notices and has not furnished any documentary evidences regarding
4 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 existence of agricultural land and neither any documents relating to sale proceeds of
agricultural crops.
This is a case where the assessee has intentionally neglected to file documentary
evidences and willfully evaded compliance to statutory notices being issued and even
before the Tribunal, the assessee has not filed any documentary evidences to establish
the existence of agricultural land holdings and sale of agricultural produce which
might result in agricultural income as claimed. As such, we consider it to be a fit case
where cost should be imposed and as such, a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed payable to
the credit of Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund, within 15 days from the date of
communication of this order (evidence to be produced before the JAO).
However, considering the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee and considering
that ex-parte order has been passed at both the stages, and in the interest of justice, we
allow the assessee one more opportunity to produce necessary documentary evidences
and to fully co-operate in proceedings before the Assessing Officer for de-novo fresh
assessment.
As such, the appeal is set aside back to the files of the AO for fresh assessment
and the assessee is directed to file all documentary evidences in support of his
contention and to fully co-operate in fresh assessment proceedings.
5 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 11. The assessee will be allowed a proper and reasonable opportunity of being
heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
I.T.A. No. 615/Asr/2024:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the penalty-imposed u/s 272A(1)(d)
of the Act by imposing a penalty of Rs.30,000/- for non-compliance to notices issued
u/s 142(1) on three separate occasions as evident from the penalty order. It is seen from
the penalty order that there has not been any compliance on the part of the assessee in
response to show cause notice issued and the assessee has not even submitted any reply
and has not made even a single attempt to explain his case. (The assessee has simply
filed an intimation before the AO that an appeal is pending against quantum
proceedings).
The matter was carried in first appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC where the
assessee has submitted a written submission where it has been stated that the place of
resident of assessee is situated in a remote village area near Valtoha Tehsil- Patti, Distt.
Tarn Taran and no proper notice has been received by the assessee. However, no
reasons has been put forth as to why there has not been any appearance by the assessee
6 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 or his AR in course of assessment proceedings on three separate occasions for which
the notices has been issued.
The ld. AR of the assessee in course of hearing before the Tribunal submitted
that the notice of hearing has not been received and as such, no appearance could be
made.
The ld. DR pointed out that the assessee himself intimated the filing of appeal
against quantum before Assessing Officer and asked for the penalty to be kept in
abeyance as such, the argument that no notices has been received is not correct because
it is the same address to which all notices has been issued.
We have heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record and
we find that numerous notices has been issued without any response from the assessee
and we consider it to be a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act.
However, on the facts of the case, we reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand
only) instead of 30,000/- imposed by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A). The
assessee gets consequential relief.
7 I.T.A. Nos. 614 & 615/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate
Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 26.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order
